Regina v Robert John Strong [2003] NSWCCA 123

Regina v Robert John Strong [2003] NSWCCA 123

The sentencing judge erred by failing to give any discount for the applicant's early plea of guilty on the stalking offence; sufficient recognition should have been given on both principal offences, though only modestly given objective seriousness. The material before the judge under the Habitual Criminals Act was inadequate and not up-to-date, resulting in a miscarriage of discretion; the pronouncement and sentence pursuant to that Act were set aside and the matter remitted to the District Court. Sentences for intimidation and stalking were quashed and resentencing was required in light of fresh psychiatric evidence and the need for public protection.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
08 May 2003
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Court of Criminal Appeal Decision on Leave to Appeal, Appeal Against Sentence and Pronouncement Under Habitual Criminals Act
Outcome
Appeals allowed in respect of sentences and Habitual Criminals Act pronouncement; sentences and pronouncement quashed; matter remitted to District Court for resentencing and fresh determination under Habitual Criminals Act.
Legal Topics
['intimidation' 'stalking' 'habitual Criminals Act' 'totality Principle' 'plea Discounts' 'manifest Excess' 'special Circumstances' 'preventive Detention' 'mental Disorder and Sentencing']
['criminal Law' 'sentencing'] ['intimidation' 'stalking' 'habitual Criminals Act' 'totality Principle' 'plea Discounts' 'manifest Excess' 'special Circumstances' 'preventive Detention' 'mental Disorder and Sentencing']

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 1 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal / Court of Criminal Appeal Decision on Leave to Appeal, Appeal Against Sentence and Pronouncement Under Habitual Criminals Act

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether sentences for intimidation and stalking offences were manifestly excessive and erroneously structured' 'Whether the Habitual Criminals Act pronouncement and sentence were properly made and supported by evidence' 'Treatment of mental disorder as a sentencing factor' 'Error in not discounting sentence for early guilty plea to stalking']

Ratio Decidendi

The sentencing judge erred by failing to give any discount for the applicant's early plea of guilty on the stalking offence; sufficient recognition should have been given on both principal offences, though only modestly given objective seriousness. The material before the judge under the Habitual Criminals Act was inadequate and not up-to-date, resulting in a miscarriage of discretion; the pronouncement and sentence pursuant to that Act were set aside and the matter remitted to the District Court. Sentences for intimidation and stalking were quashed and resentencing was required in light of fresh psychiatric evidence and the need for public protection.

Court Disposition

Appeals allowed in respect of sentences and Habitual Criminals Act pronouncement; sentences and pronouncement quashed; matter remitted to District Court for resentencing and fresh determination under Habitual Criminals Act.

Orders

  • ['Leave to appeal against sentences for intimidation and stalking granted and appeals allowed.' 'Sentences passed in District Court quashed.' 'Leave to appeal against Habitual Criminals Act pronouncement granted and appeal allowed.' 'Pronouncement and sentence under Habitual Criminals Act quashed.' 'All matters...